Anyone know how long a piece of Peco No. 5 turnout is? An Atlas No. 6 is 12" and a No. 4 is 9". So, I’m guessing a No. 5 might be 10.5"?
How much on each end can you trim off? Could I trim off enough of a No. 5 to make it fit into a No. 4 spacing or 9" straight section of track - AND still have it work properly?
Thanks for your input in advance!
Tom
As far as the limits of chopping go, on the point end you may not get much. Keep in mind that you will want to leave room for a rail joiner, so you will have to leave about 1/2" of rail from the end of the points. The legs aren’t as fussy, you can stop short of the guard rails and the frog, again thinking of room for a joiner.
I don’t have a Peco switch in front of me to tell you if you will be able to get it down to 9", but I suspect it will be close. I’m hoping that this switch does not have to line up with anything on the curved leg, since the frog angles are slightly different.
Do you have room to trim the track on either end of the space where you want to put this?
Elliot,
Unfortunately, no. If you click on the link at the bottom of the post, you will see my proposed layout, about half way down the page. The No. 4 turnout (at the upper left corner of the layout) leads right into a R22" curve and is situated as a transition track between two opposing curves on the mainline. A No. 4 turnout or 9" piece of straight sectional track fits right in that space.
I am already pushing the boundaries of my 4 x 8’ table. A No. 4 looks and works fine. A No. 5 would look even better. I’m guessing that I will probably have to increase the length and width of the table to allow for a larger turnout in that area. I was just curious if anyone had any experience with trimming No. 5 turnouts.
Tom
OK Tom I see what you are talking about. Did you buy the Peco #5 yet, or are you still thinking? If you haven’t bought it yet, you might want to consider a wye turnout there, since both legs are curved. Sectional track has limitations, and you may find that a piece of flex track on that curve would work even better.
It’s a small layout, and the computer design program has allowed you to cram a lot in neatly. Sometimes this comes at the expense of practicality. It still looks doable, but you have options beyond cutting the switch. As good as computer design is, it doesn’t deal with the subtleties of construction as well as the human brain. This is a matter of tweaking.[swg]
Elliot,
No, I haven’t bought one yet. I was just looking at my options. The “proposed” layout is just that but not written in stone. As I learn about yards and service terminals, I’m not opposed to making changes. In my mind, an around-the-wall layout would ease things up a bit and allow for larger radii on the mainline. In the meantime, the track heading off the layout could lead to a “shelf” yard and open up some space for industry.
Ray, I’d like to keep the curves as gentle (or large) as possible. All my curves are R22", except for three (3) R18" curves in the upper right portion of the layout. I know that there are a numbe of different sized wyes available. Would the radius of a No. 5 wye be in the neighborhood of R22"?
Ray, many thanks for your help with all this. [:)]
Tom
Tom, technically a wye turnout isn’t curved, though it looks like it is. The geometry is that of a left and a right on top of each other, thus making the frog double the angle of a normal turnout, but without the sharpening effect. I suspect that the #5 is going to be close to 22" radius for your purposes.
After making that suggestion, I thought of something that I saw in your plan. In your design it looks as if you are trying to insert a section of straight track as a transition to minimize the effects of the “S” curves along the top side of the plan. That is good design practice. The wye would defeat that transition, where the #5 right would preserve the straight, albeit slightly shortened from chopping. On the other hand, it isn’t as if you will be running Big Boys and 86’ passenger cars on this layout. I’m guessing 50’ max, and mostly 40’ rolling stock, so you might get away with it. Without that transition straight, you might have trouble with couplers binding and causing derailments.
You are right about around the wall plans. That would allow you to jump up to 30" or 36" easily. 4x8’s are a real challenge.
Elliot,
You are correct on all counts:
That’s indeed what I’m trying to accomplish with the straight sections of track - so that I avoid an “S” curve.
My layout is a strictly a freight depot and service stop so I plan on only running 50’ and under for my rolling stock.
It is indeed a challenging to make a 4 x 8’ layout interesting, yet not too busy.
Just to update you, Elliot. I stopped by my LHS today and posed the question to my friend Jim, who is VERY knowledable on trains. He pulled out a Walthers/Shinohara #6 turnout and measured it. It looks like you can indeed trim enough off a W/S #6 to make it fit into a 9" space. That was GREAT news! The curve coming out of the turnout will be more gradual so the angles of the servicing terminal will be different but I can live with that.
Elliot, thanks again for your input! It is much appreciated. [:)]
Tom
Glad we got this figured out Tom. On an unrelated note, I saw a couple of minor problems with your plan. You have a couple of spurs that are less than a car length. Number 15, your proposed engine track, is too short, especially if you plan to use steam. The other one is the one in the upper right corner coming off the main. It is doubtful that putting a switch there is worth the expense, unless you can make the track longer. It would make a good take off point for a shelf extension though, as would the one in the lower right.
Elliot,
You follow my line of thinking without having to say anything. The curved switch at the upper right would be for an eventual extension to a shelf, as well as the one at the lower right. I’m looking forward to trying and seeing how well a No. 6 will do in the spot we talked about. I’ll keep you posted.
Elliot, I hope your weather in St. Paul is as pretty as it is right now in Cleveland.
Tom
The weather here isn’t bad for early April. A little cloudy today with storms expected later, but I have been inside all day. I just hope it is nice on Friday and Sunday, because I have a train show to set up for and tear down. I just don’t need rain those days.
As for the proposed engine track being short, you could switch that one with the proposed caboose track. You might be able to squeeze a caboose on that one and get it in the clear.
But Peco doesn’t make a no. 5 turnout, do they? I understood Peco’s small radius is a no. 4, their medium radius is a no. 6, and their large radius is a number 8. Their wye turnout may be a number 5 - I’ve never used one of those. One of the Atlas’ turnouts is really a no. 4.5, not a no. 4.
Jim
Jim,
Check out the Walthers link: http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/552-SLE8351
You’d have a choice of either the Insulfrog or the Electrofrog. The entire Walthers line of Peco Code 83 track can be viewed at the link below:
http://www.walthers.com/exec/search?quick=code%2083&start=240
Tom
it might be a bit late but i thought i’d answer the original question !
a peco code 83 # 5 turnout (peco part # SL-8351(right hand) or (SL-8352 (left hand)) is 8.25" long . no modification is required to get it under 9" . it’ could be cut down to 7.25" and still leave .5" on each end for rail joiners
for comparison , a shinohara code 70 #4 is 9.5" but could easily be cut down to 6.75" , a shinohara code 83 #5 is 10.25", reducable to about 7.25" and an atlas customline mark 3 code 100 # is 12" long , reduceable to just over 9"
disclaimer : the shinoharas are at least 10 years old , i have no idea if current models are identical , although it seems unlikely they’d change the geometry of their switches
to anyone who needs specs on other switches … sorry these are the only ones in my collection of miscellaneous bits and pieces of model railroading stuff [;)]
Thanks, ereimer! [:)] That’s helpful to know…
Tom